[X] My Assistant

[dvandorn]

...The farther you go into the future (or the more advance the aliens etc the novel or movie has) the more speculative the science will inevitably become and the more tenuous the connection between the extrapolated science in the novel or movie and the actual scientific knowledge of the present day.

This is what David Brin calls, very eloquently, "energetic arm-waving." You reach a point in extrapolating science that all you really end up doing is waving your arms energetically through the air... You can make it sound like real science, but it's not based on anything that can even be remotely extrapolated from current theory. (I will say that Brin does this quite well in his novels.)

-the other Doug

[belleraphon1]

Forget the movies...... I would like to see a series on SCiFi channel of adaptations from a selection of the best stories from science fiction thru the 20th century.

Van Voght, Anderson, Niven...... and tie those into what we knew of the universe when these stories were written as opposed to what we know now.

How the heady days of the 60's brought out Anderson's stories of the Polsotecnic League back when we thought life was bursting out all over.

That would be educational, and a tribute to great writers.......

Craig

[dvandorn]

There are several novels and novellas which are really crying out to be made into films or TV series these days. I'd say that Anderson's Flandry novels would make a good allegory to current world affairs, as would a little Heinlein piece entitled "If This Goes On..."

-the other Doug

[Stephen]

A few points:

1) You have to define what you mean by a "science fiction" movie. There have been any number of fantasies released in the past 5 years, many of them of the sf variety (but still solidly fantastical -- I include space opera, such as Star Wars, in this category). In terms of "true" science fiction, I think the last film made that qualifies for that title might be "Space Cowboys."

While you make a valid point about the need to define "what you mean by a 'science fiction' movie" that merely raises questions of how do you define a "science fiction" movie and how do you distinguish "'true' science fiction" from other sorts like "space opera".

IMHO the line between so-called "'true' science fiction" on the one hand and "space opera" & other sorts seems to exist largely in the eye of the beholder.

Take HG Wells. He is generally regarded as one of the founding fathers of science fiction, yet a number of his books have elements which were doubtful science even at the time he wrote them. For example, his use of the fictitious "cavorite" in "The First Men in the Moon" was famously criticised on that very ground by none other than Jules Verne, one of the other founding fathers. (Albeit Verne's own use of a cannon to propel people to the Moon, while more plausible in a sense, was a no-less-improbable means of propelling people to the Moon for other reasons.)

Do the non-scientific aspects of those novels mean that "The First Men in the Moon" and "From the Earth to the Moon" are not "'true' science fiction"?

Similar things could be said about movies like "Space Cowboys" and even "2001: A Space Odyssey". For example, compare the "star gate" sequence near the end of the latter to the hyperdrives used in the "Star Wars" universe. Both are devices used to get around the light speed barrier and neither are explained in their respective movies. In fact on the face of it you could probably make the case that both the "2001" star gate and the "Star Wars" hyperdrive are merely different names for the same plot device. So does that mean that:

1) The "Star Wars" hyperdrive, like the "2001" stargate, is a valid use of plausible speculation about future scientific discoveries; or
2) The "2001" star gate is as much "fantasy science" as the "Star Wars" hyperdrive?

If so is "2001" now (as a consequence) to be ejected in disgrace from the ranks of "'true' science fiction" or alternately can the "Star Wars" saga now come in from the space opera wilderness to the hallowed halls of "'true' science fiction"?

======
Stephen

[Guest_Richard Trigaux_*]

Good point, Stephen. I was peparing a post to say something like this, but you say it better than I did.



In any kind of science fiction, there is alway a bet on what could be a future science, what will be discovered. We can win this bet or not. The finest would be somebody having some intuition in advance over the scientists (Like Jules vernes, who had remarkable premonitions, but who made some tremendous calculation mistakes from a lack of real science knowledge. Or like 2001, where we can more or less"recognize" each Jupiter moon).

Scientists are generaly unable to do far fetched science fiction, or only some close extrapolation about what they hypothetise can exist (like "contact" with the wormholes, or "Close encounters of the third kind" with extraterestrial life). Ignorants or nutters can no more do good scifi: they simply imagine "plot devices" which arbitrarily allow for what they want, without giving any explanation. So the best is some balance between real science knowledge and enough though audacity to imagine what could be possible. After, to do a good story witth this, we still need somebody able to imagine a realistic universe and plot, realistic yet involving prychology, enough romantism, etc. And then a good writer, and then a good movie maker, able to transcript all this good stuff without adding his "adaptation to the public".

[dvandorn]

In re the Verne vs. Wells debate, I believe Verne got in the last word rather eloquently. I'm sure I'm paraphrasing this a bit, but Verne said, "I can show gun cotton to Mr. Wells, and demonstrate its use. Until such time as Mr. Wells can do the same with Cavorite, I shall not withdraw my objection."



-the other Doug